Re: solving the network-manager-in-gnome problem
On 2012-07-22 14:11:41 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 01:50:58PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > I disagree. ENABLE/DISABLE switches have some advantages: they are
> > more readable than a set of symlinks, allow all the settings of some
> > service to be grouped in a single place, and can be managed more
> > easily by VCS software.
> While this is true, it's not the way that sysvinit works. Other
> systems such as systemd may provide such facilities natively, but
> initscripts do not. If you're going to use sysvinit, then you
> should just use update-rc.d foo disable to disable it.
I don't think there's anything wrong with enhancing the way that
sysvinit works, as long as the user can still use the update-rc.d
> > The user may not want a service he didn't request or he hasn't
> > configured yet to be enabled by default. For instance, some packages
> > may be installed automatically (due to dependencies), or one may want
> > the client, but not the server. Such services should be disabled by
> > default.
> This is not the general consensus--by default daemons are started if
> the package is installed. This has been already debated extensively
> many times over. Irrespective of whether your personal opinion is
> that this is a good or bad thing, that's just the way it is at present.
You're wrong. This is not true for all packages. It seems that
it's up to the maintainer to choose whether the daemon is run
by default or not.
Anyway the Debian Policy Manual doesn't seem to
* forbid ENABLE/DISABLE switches,
* require that daemons should be run by default.
Vincent Lefèvre <email@example.com> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)